Relationships

1. Sampling stage, experimenting with costs and rewards

2. Barganing stage, beginning of the relationship, exchange various costs and rewards. Negotiatin

3. commitment stage, as time goies on, cost and rewards become more predictable. relationship becomes stable, rewards increase, costs lessen. 

4. Institutionalisation stage, partners are settled, norms and cost and reward established. 

Comparison level- the amount of reward we believe we deserve to get, based on past relationships, influenced by social norms. The more relationships we have, the more 'data' we collect. Our CL changes based on data collected. Relationship is worth persuing if the CL is high, linked to self esteem.

CLat- do we believe we would gain greater costs from another relationship or even been alone. We will stay in current relationships if it is better than the alternative. Duck, our CLat level is based on the state of our current relationship. The more satisfied, the less we notice alternatives. 

CLat- do we believe we would gain greater costs from another relationship or even been alone. We will stay in current relationships if it is better than the alternative. Duck, our CLat level is based on the state of our current relationship. The more satisfied, the less we notice alternatives. 

Thibault and Kelly- 1959.

A theory of how romantic relationships develop, based on the idea that romantic partners act out of self-interest, weighing up cost and reward. Deemed to be satisfying if reward outweighs cost. 

Clark and Mills. The theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship. Exchange relationships eg, work colleagues. Communal relationships eg, romantic. These do not keep score or we'd question the commitment. Inappropriate assumption.

Argyle. Cause and effect. We don't measure cost and reward until we are dissatisfied. 

Miller. People rated as highly committed spent less time looking at pictures of attractive people. This was a good predictor of the continuation of the relationship. Committed, didn't even look at attractive alternatives. 

Ignores equity, research shows this is more important than measuring cost and reward. neglection of this factor, SET is a limited explanation that does not account for a significant portion of the research. 

Difficult concepts to measure, psychological rewards hard to determine. Vary from one to the other. Level of CL and CLat unclear. 

Artifical research, two strangers working together on a game, do not represent real-life relationships. These snapshot studies cannot account for properties that emerge over time eg, trust. Real life relationships less supportive of SET. 

Kerckhoff and Davis 1962. 

Compared attitudes and personality of student couples, short-term (less than 18 months) and long-term (longer than 18 months). We all have a field of available, set of potential romantic partners. These are filtered through 3 stages to narrow down partner choice to field of desirables. Each factor is important at diffrent stages in the relationship. 

DAC

Social Demography- 1st level-  influence chance of meeting in the first place, eg, proximity, culture, social background, education, religion ect. More likely to meet people who live close and share demographic characteristics. These are most meaningful and memorable interactions.  Anyone too different is discounted, more likely to form relationships with similar people - homogamy. 

Similarity in Attitudes- 2nd level- Partners share important beliefs and values. More important to the development of couples that had been together less than 18 months. Need to agree in the beginning as it deepens communication. Byrne- similarity causes kaw of attraction, if the partners have little in common. The relationship will 'fizzle out'. 

Complementary- 3rd level- The ability of romantic partners to meet the others needs. Complement when one possesses characterists the other lacks. More important in long term couples, gives them the feeking taht together they make a 'whole' which adds depth to the relationship. 

Face validity. Assumes relationships develop over time, often agreed to. 

Winch- Found similarities in personality, interests and attitudes in partners in the early stage of a relationship. Also found complementary more important than similarity in long-term couples. Validity- supports two of the suggestions by real relationships.

Levinger- many studies failed to replicate original findings. He put this down to social change and difficulties in defining the depth of the relationship by length. Chose an 18-month midpoint, assumed all who had been together longer were more committed, not necessarily true. Problems applying results to heteros in own culture, nevermind homos in other. 

Anderson- suggests people are attracted to each other because they are similar. A longitudinal study, cohabiting partners became more similar in emotional responses over time. Emotional- convergence. Attitude alignment effect. Bringing attitudes in line with the other. Similarities the effect of a relationship, not the cause.

Online dating, likely hood of dating someone outside our culture has increased. Social demography less important. Lacks temporal validity. 

Shackelford and Larson- 1997. 

People with symmetrical faces are more attractive. A Signal of 'honest' genetic fitness. We are attracted to neotenous faces (babyface), wide eyes, delicate chin and a small nose. Trigger caring instincts, related to attachment formed in infancy. McNulty, initial attractiveness continued to be important in relationships after marriage. 

Preconceived ideas about personality traits attractive people gave. These are usually positive. Dion 'what is beautiful is good'. Attractive people constantly rated as strong, kind, successful and sociable. Believe that they possess these characteristics, we act more positively towards them- a self-fulfilling prophecy. Tends to have a disproportionate influence on judgement.

Walster 1966. 

We chose partners who are of roughly similar attractiveness. Have a realistic judgement of our value. Evolutionary theory states we'd go for the most attractive option available but we have to balance attraction against rejection. A compromise. 

Palmer and Peterson. Attractive people constantly rated as more knowledgeable, this even persisted when they knew they had no expertise. Implications in the political process. Can be applied to real-life situations. 

Towhey 1979. Completed MACHO scale (measures sexist attitudes), those who scored high were more influenced by physical attraction when judging a person using a photograph and bio. Individual differences, moderated by other factors. May not be a significant issue in relationship formation for all partners.

Walsters initial study found students were more attracted to those more physically attractive than on there level. Failed to support hypotheses. Only had a few seconds to judge off a photo, may not be reliable. 

Feingold, meta-analysis of 17 studies, found a significant correlation between the level of attractiveness in partners. These were real partners, more realistic.

Cultural consistency, Cunningham et al- females large eyes, small nose, high cheekbones rated attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian men. Wheeler and Kim, Korean and USA students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, mature and friendly. Stereotype just as strong in individualistic and collective society.

Taylor et al, actual online dating logs. People sought meetings with potential partners who were more attractive than themselves. Did not consider own attractiveness. 

An evolutionary explanation of partner preference, characteristics that are valued are passed onto offspring, these may be exaggerated. These characteristics may appear as a disadvantage but actually, confer an advantage. Eg, greater height. 

The difference in male and female gametes. These are very obvious. The sperm is small, mobile, produced in vast numbers from puberty to old age and doesn't take much energy to produce. Whereas the ova is large, static, produced at intervals for a limited number of years and takes a large amount of energy up. Females are a rare 'resource'. this affects mating strategy as the females are therefore choosier. 

Prefered strategy of the females, quality over quantity. Ova are rarer and take more energy to produce. Triver- (1972)- emphasises that the female makes a greater investment of time, commitment and other resources, before, during and after birth. The consequence of choosing a wrong partner is more serious for the female than the male. Females strategy, genetically fit partner who can provide resources. Leaves the males competing to mate with the fertile female. Female preference for good traits determines features passed on to offspring. Fisher described this as a 'runaway process' known as '**** sons' hypotheses. Females mate with a male who is desirable to pass characteristics to son, to increase his chance of mating. 

Prefered strategy of the male, quantity over quality. the competition between males to mate with the female. Winner reproduces and passes characteristics onto offspring. Led to a rise in dimorphism- the obvious difference in males and females. Eg, males who fight for the woman, the bigger one wins so mates and passes on large genetics. There is no competition between females for this so no evolutionary drive for bigger females. Also has behavioural and psychological consequences eg, acting more aggressive to 'protect' the female. Anisogamy, states males optimum strategy is to mate with as many fertile women as possible. The behavioural consequence is the preference for youth and indicators of youth. 

Buss- (1989)- Surveyed 10,000 adults in 33 countries, Questions relating to traits that evolutionary theory predicts to be important. Females placed greater importance on resource-related characteristics such as finance and ambition. Males prefer younger mates, looks and chastity. Reflect sex difference in mating strategy due to anisogamy. Can be applied to all countries. 

Clark and Hatfield - (1989), male and female students asked the opposite sex for sex, 0 females agreed but 75% of males did, shows females are choosier. Supports Inter

Ignores social and cultural influences. Such as the use of contraception, women can be less choosy. The greater role in the workplace, no longer dependent on men to provide. Preference may no longer be resource related. 

Chang et al, compared partner preference over 25 years, soem had changed, some stayed the same. Preference now a mix of evolutionary and cultural influences. The theory is limited, fails to account for both. 

Waist-hip ratio support, Singh- what matters is not the body size but the ratio. Generally, find any attractive if the ratio is 0.7. 'honest' signal that the woman is not pregnant. 

Lonely hearts, ads in an American newspaper. People describe themselves and what they are looking for. Women looked for resource-related qualities and described themselves physically. 

Revealing information about oneself, this becomes more developed as the relationship goes on. Starting with the superficial knowledge we would virtually tell anyone and ending with private information. deepest thoughts and feelings, these can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately. 

Altman and Tyalor (1973)

The gradual process of revealing oneself to the other, deepest thoughts and feelings, this displays trust, this process must be reciprocal. As they increasingly disclose information to the other, they penetrate further into each other's lives and gain a greater understanding of the other. Only when the relationship reaches a certain stage. 

Altman and Taylor, self-disclosure has two elements, as these increase, we become more committed. Layers of an onion, we discuss a lot about ourselves at the beginning but most of this is superficial low-risk information that we would reveal to most. Breadth is narrow, many topics off limits. If we reveal too much too soon we may get a negative response, threatening the relationship. As the relationship develops, it deepens and we uncover more layers to reveal our true selves, a wider range of topics. Eventually revealing high-risk information. 

Reis and Shaver. (1988)

To develop in both breadth and depth, information exchange needs to be reciprocal. Once deciding to reveal information, the partner must respond in a rewarding manner, understanding and empathetic with own thoughts and feelings. The balance of self-disclosure between partners increases feelings of intimacy. 

Sprecher and Hendrick 2004- heterosexual dating couples, strong correlation between measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure. Those who used self-disclosure were more satisfied and committed to their relationship. Also linked to higher levels of intimacy in long-term married couples. Increases validity of the theory

Real life application, partners who have trouble with intimacy can use this deliberately to strengthen bond. Hass and Stafford (1988), 57% of gay men and women said open and honest self-disclosure strengthened there bond. The theory can be applied to homosexuals as well. Demonstrates the value of the insight. 

Not true for all cultures, Tang et al, women and men in the USA self-disclose more sexual thoughts than in China, individualistic vs collective culture. The limited explanation, based on western findings, not necessarily generalisable to other cultures. 

The onion metaphor suggests breakdown would be due to lack of self disclosure, this is challenged by other theories such as Ducks phase breakdown model, where couples work to save deteriorating relationship. Self-disclosure may even contribute towards the relationship breakdown.

Causation vs correlation. Much research is correlational, does not tell us which way around.

Economic thery developed out of criticism of SET. Takes into account cost, rewards and equity. 

Role

Walster et al, what matters most is that partners costs and rewards are roughly the same. When there is a lack of equity, one partner overbenefits and th other underbenefits. Under benefitted may feel, anger, hostility, resentmenat and humiliation. Overbenefited may feel, guilt, discomfort and shame. Satisfaction is about percieved fairenss. 

It's not the size of cost and reward that matters but the ratio to the other eg, puts a lot in but gets a lot out- will seem fair. Satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity. Rewards are distributed fairly not equally. Involves making trade-offs.  

Problems arise when one partner puts a great deal into the relationship but gets little from it. This will cause distress and unhappiness. Strong correlation between greater perceived inequity and dissatisfaction. Applies to both under and over-benefited. 

Changes in perceived inequity- most dissatisfying is a change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on. May feel natural to give more than we receive at the start but if this continues it may not feel as satisfying as it did in the early days. 

Dealing with inequity-  The 'put upon' partner will work to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe the relationship is salvageable. The more the relationship is unfair, the harder they will work. Strong correlation. Cognitive, may revise perception of costs and reward so it feels more equitable to them. What was once seen as a cost eg, untidiness is now seen as a norm. 

Addresses flaws seen in SET theory, supported by real-life relationships that confirm this explanation to be more valid. Utne et al, a survey of 118 recently married couples using two scales of self-report. Age 16-45 and had been together for two years previous to marriage. Those who considered the relationship to be equitable were more satisfied. 

Assumes equity is fundamental to human behaviour. Aumer-Ryan et al, Individualistic vs collective society. Individualistic most satisfied when equitable but collective more satisfied when they were over benefitting. True for both men and women. Limited, cannot account for cultural differences. 

Huseman et al, some people are less sensitive to equity than others. Benevolent are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it. Entitled believe they deserve to be over benefitted and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty. Equity not a universal law of interaction. 

Clark and mills, type of relationship. Equity plays a central role in casual friendships, business/work. Evidence in romantic relationships is mixed. 

Theory suggests relationships should become more equitable but Berg and Mcquinn, equity did not increase in their longitudinal study. Other variables important, self-disclosure. 

Rusbult et al 2011. 

Commitment depends on three factors. A development of SET, satisfaction, Comparison with alternatives level and investment size. 

Satisfaction based on costs and rewards, satisfying if rewards outweigh costs and they are getting more out the relationship than they expected, based on past experience and social norms. Additionally, they ask if they could gain more costs and fewer rewards from another relationship or even being alone. 

Investment size-  Rusbult didn't believe SET was a full explanation as relationships would soon end when cost outweighed the reward or more attractive alternatives presented themselves. Investment refers to the extent and importance of resources associated with the relationship that would be lost if the relationship was to end. Two types of investment

1. Intrinsic investment, resources we put directly into the relationship. Tangible assets such as a money or possessions, intangible such as energy, emotion and self-disclosure. 

2. Extrinsic investment, resources that did not previously feature in the relationship but now are closely associated with it. Tangible such as house or car bought together or intangible such as mutual friends or memories. 

If the partner is satisfied and alternatives less attractive along with investment increasing. The relationship is likely to be committed. 

Rusbult, main reason to stay in a. relationship isnt satisfaction but commitment. Commitment is influenced by investment size, they don't want to see it go to waste. Explains why dissatisfied stay in the relationship and why they work hard to repair the relationship. 

Partners don't engage in ***-for-tat but act to promote the relationship (accommodation). Putting partners interests first, willingness to sacrifice and forgive. Cognitive element, be unrealistically positive about there own relationship and negative about alternatives and other peoples relationships. 

Agnew, meta-analysis. 52 studies from 1970-90s. 11,000 participants, 5 countries. Satisfaction, CLat and investment size were found to be good predictors of commitment. Relationships, where commitment was greatest, were the most stable and lasted the longest. True for both men and women across all cultures analysed. As well as hetero and homo couples. Validity that factors are universal.

Explains abusive relationships, they may not be satisfied but have a large investment. Maybe unrealistically optimistic. Rusbult and Martz- studied battered women at a shelter, this most likely to return to the abuser had the greatest investment and fewest alternatives.

Two major contrasticing theories of self disclosure on social media. 

Reduced cues- Sproull and kiesler- CMC relationships less effective than ftf ones as we lack the non verbal cues such as body language and physical aprerence. Especially emotional, facial expressions and tone of voice. Leads to de-individuation, reduces sense of identity, this then encourages disinhibition when relating to others. Therefore more likely to involve blunt and agressive communication. Meaning we are reluctant to self disclose as you are unlikely to want a relationship with someone impersonal. 

Walther, online relationships can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than ftf ones as self-disclosure happens earlier. Once established the relationship is more intense and intimate. Yet can end quicker as high levels of excitement aren't matched with the trust that we usually display. Cooper and Sportolari- boom and bust phenomenon. Sender of the message has more time to manipulate responses than in ftf- selective self-presentation. Easier to manipulate self discolsure and promote intoimacy. Anonymity, bargh- 'strangers on a train effect', we feel less accountable for behaviour so may disclose more. 

Gate- is an obstical in the formation of the relationship. FTF relationships have gates such as physical attractivness, stammer, social anxiety ect. Mckenna and Bragh- huge advantage to CMC is absence of gating, relationships can develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper. Alows the relationship to 'get off the ground' in a way which is less likely to occur in FTF relationships. Absence of gating distracts away from the usual distractions such as physical attractiveness, voice ect. and focuses on what you are actually saying. Also means people are free to be who they like online, create profiles for anyone. Can be positive such as introvert becomng extravert but also negitive eg, peadophiles pretending to be children. 

Walter and Tidwell, people online still use cues they are just diffrent to FTF interaction such as timing, style of message. Emoticons substitute facial expressions. Shows CMC relationships can just be as personal as FTF relationships. 

Hyper personal model predicts that people are motivated to self-disclose in CMC in ways that can be hyperhonest or hyperdishonest to make themselves appear in a better llight. Whitty and Joinson- summerised evidence for this case, eg, questions asked in online discussuions were more direct than FTF conversations whoich often have alot of 'small talk', responses were also more direct. We present ourselves in a positive light which aids relationship formation. 

Diffrent types of CMC, social networking sites (SNS) people are likely to know eachother in the real world. People more willing to disclose on Facebook rather than an online survey where they view information to be private. Relationships are generally conducted both online and offline not usualluy one or the other. Modern relationships, online disclosure often influences offline behaviour. 

Online dating, self disclosure reduced as partys anticipate meeting in real life, this doesnt eist on chat forums or gaming sites. Any theory that approaches CMC as a single concept neglects richness and variety. Unlikely to be a valid explanation. 

Mckenna and Bargh, looked at use of CMC for socially anxious people, found that these were able to express there true selves more than in FTF interaction. Of the relationships formed online, 70% lasted 2 or more years. Longer than FTF relationships.

Duck 2007, phase model of relationship breakdown. Argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one off event but occurs over four phases. Each phrase marked by one partner reaching a 'threshold', the point where their view of the relationship changes- usually for the worst. Usually begins when the partner realises they are dissatisfied about something. 

Intra-psychic phase- 'i cant stand this anymore'- Cognitive process, partner dwells on reasons for dissatisfaction, mainly partner short comings. These are private but may be shared with a close friend. Weights up pros and cons against alternatives. Begin to plan for the future

Dyadic phase- 'i would be justified in withdrawing'- interpersonal process between partners. Series of confroontations over a period of time, disatisfactions aired. Characterised by anxiety, hostility, complaints about lack of equity, resenment over imbalance rethinking of commitment. Two outcomes- break up or repair it. 

Social phase- 'i mean it'- Wider process, including couples social networks, break up is made public, partners seek support. Mutual friends chose a side, factions formed. Gossip reinfored, friends offer reassurence 'ive aways said you was too good for him', others willbe judgemental. Some hasten ending of relationship others try bring it back together. Usualluy the point of no return. Break up takes on a momentum of social force. 

Grave-dressing phase- 'its now inevitable'- The aftermath, time to spin a story favouring themselves. Allowing them to save face and maintain a positive reputation, usually at the expense of the other. Blames circumstyances on everything but oneself. May also create a personal story to make it easier to live with, this might be diffrent from the public story. Tyding up memories and rewritting history. Traits you once found endering are now seen as negitives. Other couples may accept they were never compatable. Time to move on. 

Rollie and Duck- the origional model is over simplified, trhey addded an extra phase. Resssurrection phase- ex partners use experienced gained on future partners. Progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable. It is possible to return to any phase at any time. Not a linear movement. 

Most research Ducks theory is based on is retrospective, recall not accurate and reliable. Very early stages are often difficult to remember as not seen as significant. Almost impossible to study early stages, if researches get involved they could disrupt relationship, making it end sooner thanit would usually. Ignores begining of the relationship so is therefore incomplete. 

real life application. The theory recognises that relationships can be saved and offers ways to help this, eg, intra-psychic phase- focus on partner positives. Dydic- communication. This insight could be used in councelling.

Does not explain why breakdown occurs just how. More descriptive and less explanatory. other theories- Flemlees, fatal attraction hyothesis argues the cause of breakdown can be found in the attractive qualities that brought us together. Threatened of getting too much of what they asked for.

Cultural bias, based on western findings, especially USA. Relationships in individualistic cultures are voulentary and often come to an end. Relationships in Collectivistt are less likely to be obligatory, less easy to end and more concerned with the wider family. Some cases arranged. 

Lynn McCutcheon et ak 2002- developed the Celebrity Attitude Scale which was then used in a large-scale survey by Maltby et al. They identified three levels of parasocial relationships. , each describing attitudes and behaviopurs towards celebrity worship.

1. Entertainment Social, least intense form of worship, celebrities viewed as sources of entertainment for social interaction. Giles, parasocial relationships were a fruitful source of gossip in offices.

2.Intense-personal, intermediate level, reflects greater involvement. May have frequent obsessive thoughts and concider them to be their 'soul mate'

3. Boarderline pathological, stringest level of celebrity worship. Uncontrollable fantasies and extreem behaviour, may include spening large amounts of money or willing to perform illegal acts.

McCutcheon, tendancy to form parasocial relationships in terms of deficiencies people have in their own lives. Eg, weak sense of self identity and lack of fulfilment in lives. Parasocial relationship enables them to 'escape reality', or a way of fulfilment that they couldnt find in their daily lives. May be subject to more intense involvement as a reaction to an event in life

-Absorption, Seeking fulfilment in celebrities allows them to become pre-occupied in their existance and identify with them

-Addiction, The individual needs to sustain commitment to the relationship by feeling a stronger and closer involvement with the celebrity. May lead to more extreem behaviours and delusional thinking eg, believing the celebrity wants to meet you but is being stopped by there manager. 

Many psychologists believe the tendancy to form attachments to celebrities in adolescence and adulthood is linked to childhood attachment. Ainsworth identified two attachment types. Insecure- resistant and insecure-avoidant. Insecure-resistant more likely to form parasocial relationships because they have unfulfilled needs. Yet prefer to avoid relationships out of fear of rejection, break-up and dissapointment. Insecure-avoidant tend to avoid all types of relationships. 

Maltby, investigated the link between celebrity worship and body image. in males and females 14-16. Females reporting intense-personal relationships with females whos body they admired were correlated with poor body image in adolesence. This could link to eating disorders. Also linked entertainment-social to extraverted personailty traits, intense-personal to neurotic traits and pathological with psychotic personality traits. Support the correlation in celebrity worship and poor psychological functioning. 

McCutcheon, attachment and celebrity related attitudes in 229 ps, they found ps with insecure attachment were no more likely to form parasocial relationships than those with secure attachments. fails to support the central theory. Questions validity.

Most studies rely on self-report methods, eg, online questionnairs. Subject to effects eg, social desirability bias. Correkation vs causation. Maltby concluded an intense-personal relationship caused poor body image but young women could already have poor body image so are drawn into intense-personal worship. lacks longitudinal research.

Describes characteristics but does not explain how they develop.

Not culture specific. Schmid and Klimmt, online questionnairs about Harry Potter, found similar levels in parasocial attachment in Germany and Mexico.